A Guidebook on Post Orange Ukraine for Americans and Europeans

Since the collapse of the Orange Revolution, Ukraine has fallen into somewhat a tributary state of Russia. A recent report published by Chatham House shows some clues to understand Ukrainian politics and security in the Black Sea region (“The Mortgaging of Ukraine’s Independence”; Chatham House Briefing Paper; August 2010). I would like to review this essay.

In this report, James Sherr, Head of Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House, presents an overview of post Soviet Ukrainian politics, and analyzes the Russo-Western geopolitical power game. Despite the hope of democracy, the Orange regime disappointed Ukrainian people because “Ukrainian society appears to have returned to the post-Soviet pattern of cynicism, apathy, distrust of others and loss of interest in anything unrelated to family and self.” However, Sherr says that the Polish-Lithuanian and Hapsburg traditions deters Russian-styled power rule in Ukraine. This is an important point to understand why Ukraine wanders between Europe and Russia.

The most important issue of this paper is the Kharkiv Accord with Russia on April 21 this year. Sherr says that President Viktor Yanukovych has committed a fatal error to sign this accord. Ukraine was offered a generous deal such as a 30% discount for gas import, in return of extending Russian military presence in its territory. In an interview with a Ukrainian newspaper, Amanda Paul, Policy Analyst at the European Policy Centre in Belgium, commented that the Kharkiv Accord would not damage EU-Ukrainian relations because this deal was expected. She says that the accord will not deter Ukraine’s aspiration for EU membership, but it is Kremlin’s stamp to keep Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence (“Expert: Kharkiv accords between Medvedev, Yanukovych 'Moscow's stamp' for Kyiv”; Kyiv Post; April 22, 2010).

As Ukrainian people experienced the worst economic crisis since its independence during the gas conflict, they are preoccupied with the economy at the expense of national security. As a result, Ukraine was forced to take economic policies dependent on Russia. Once Ukraine cancels the deal, it must repay received discount. Also, Kremlin and Gazprom strengthened their leverage on Ukrainian economic policy. Sherr points out that though Yanukovych tried to decrease Russia’s ambitions through pre-emptive concessions, it has made Ukraine under de facto control of Russia.

This has significant implications for the Russo-Western geopolitics. Like the first president Leonid Kuchuma, Viktor Yanukovych explores to join the EU, while deepening friendship with Russia. However, the security environment has changed. In the Kuchuma era, the Euro Atlantic framework nurtured good relations between Yeltin’s Russia and the West. Today, Russia has moved back to Czarist nationalism. Also, 9/11 attacks and the peaceful rise of China have changed global security structure. In such a dangerous world, Yanukovych has deepened partnership with Russia, without counterweight to guarantee Ukrainian national interest, while Kuchuma explored NATO membership. Sherr mentions a critical point that Yanukovych does not understand fundamental difference in geopolitics in the 1990s and present days.

In view of Ukraine’s dangerous dependence on Russia, how should the West do?　When Yanukovych was inaugurated to new president, America and Europe accepted him a pragmatic centrist. However, poor governance under the Yanukovych administration has ruined democracy in this country although the election was free of fraud. This is a grave damage to security in the Black Sea area. Sherr insists that the EU must present credible membership prospects encourage Ukrainian efforts for democracy. Also, he insists that the Obama administration act beyond saying that the United States will not sacrifice neighboring countries to reset relations with Russia. Sherr criticizes the speech by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Kyiv on July 3, because she simply said that the United States did not regard the Russo-Ukrainian friendship as anti-American, without defining US and Western interests in this region.

James Sherr argues a vital point. President Barack Obama is preoccupied with resetting relations with Russia, and his post-American behavior raises concerns among nations from Poland to Caucasus. Also, European leaders are too post modern to balk Russian expansionism. But things are making some progress. At the Yalta European Strategy Conference this October, Štefan Füle (Czech), European Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy, said that the forthcoming EU-Ukraine Association Agreement would improve political governance and economic transparency in Ukraine (“Ukraine and the World: Rethinking and Moving on”; Europa; 1 October 2010 As to the agreement, see “Ukraine close to finalizing Association Agreement with EU – Yanukovych”; RIA Novosti; 6 October 2010). Remember, James Sherr says “Even in the unlikely event that Russia’s more ambitious schemes of integration succeed, Ukraine will remain a sovereign state, and it must be treated as one“, in this paper.

Post Election Ukraine in Turmoil as Expected

Prior to the presidential election in Ukraine, Sergei Molchanov at the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal of Canada warned that Ukraine would fall into turmoil after the election whoever wins (“Ukraine: Elections or Emergency Rule?”; Global Research; February 1, 2010). Things are going as he said.

It is a week since the election, but Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko still rejects to concede her opponent Viktor Yanukovich. Tymoshenko insists that over one million fraud votes had led Yanukovich to win this election. While Tymoshenko tells her supporters not to appeal for demonstrations on the street, she is exploring another Orange protest against Yanukovich. She says that some election monitors of the OSCE will support her at the court（”Premier Says Fraud Tainted Ukraine Vote”; New York Times; February 13, 2010).

Meanwhile, European monitors praised fair election, and American and European leaders, including US President Barack Obama, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and EU President Herman Van Rompuy, congratulated the winner Yanukovich. As Rasmussen says, they explore strategic partnership with Russia and former Soviet republics, rather than “overstretching” to the east (“NATO, EU follow U.S., welcome Ukraine's Yanukovich”; Washington Post; February 12, 2010).

Nevertheless, Tymoshenko still claims fraud votes in this election. Previously, I quoted a commentary by Mark Medish, Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, on this blog. Ukraine is a patchwork nation, lacking of political cohesion. Ethnic and regional divide is one of the reasons for messy disputes after the election. Also, Ukraine dos not have sufficient history as a sovereign nation state.

Let me review the article by Molchanov to understand the post-election confusion. Quoting a nationalist blogger’s comment, “I vote for Tymoshenko in the hope that either she wins and a pro-Russian criminal will not become our President or she loses by a minimal margin and take the case to court if not start fighting. Then the current President will have to disqualify both candidates and impose an emergency rule to avoid bloodshed”, Molchanov foresees two scenarios. The first is the introduction of emergency rule as Tymoshenko does not accept Yanukovich’s victory in the election. The second is uprising by Ukrainian nationalists and ethnic minorities like Cremian Tatars to support the coalition of outgoing President Yushchenko and unconceding Tymoshenko. I think that a destabilized Ukraine may lead to further clash between Russia and the West, which will ruin the Obama-Rasmussen initiatives for engagement.

Yanukovich said that his administration would admit Russia’s Black Sea Fleet to stay at Sevastpol base beyond 2017 withdrawal timetable signed under the Yushchenko administration (“Yanukovich says ready for Russian fleet, gas deals”; Reuters; February 13, 2010). Ukrainian nationalists will protest vehemently against continual Russian military presence in Ukrainian territory. Also, tensions between US bases in Romania and Bulgaria and Russian bases in Ukraine could be intensified.

Even if Tymoshenko concedes, it will be quite hard to soothe Ukrainian nationalists around Kiev and north western regions. Therefore, careful observation is necessary.

At the Third Japan-Black Sea Dialogue

As I mentioned before, I attended the third Japan-Black Sea Dialogue at the International House of Japan, which was hosted by the Global Forum of Japan with the help of Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Turkish Embassy, Bulgarian Embassy, and the Wider Europe Research Center at the University of Shizuoka.

At the beginning of this event, President Kenichi Ito at the Global Forum of Japan mentioned common policy agendas between Japan and Black Sea nations, ie, the global financial crisis and the Russo-Western conflicts. Secretary General Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) and Director General Yasuaki Tanizaki of European Affairs Bureau at Japanese foreign Affairs Ministry outlined the importance of the Black Sea area in security and the economy of the world. The Black Sea area is located at the crossroads among Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East. It is a cradle of ancient civilizations, such as Scythia, Thrace, Anatolia, and Greek colonists.

As for Japan’s role in this region, the focus tends to be those on economic and development cooperation such as infrastructure building and so forth. Director General Mithat Rende of Economic Affairs Bureau at Turkish Foreign Ministry mentioned Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada’s visit to Turkey from January 3 to 4 to commemorate “2010 Year of Japan in Turkey” as a breakthrough in Turkish-Japanese relations.

Since the Black Sea region is a frontline of the Russo-Western conflict and a route of energy resource, multilateral interaction cannot be dismissed to talk about Japanese diplomacy in this area. BSEC nations possess the second largest reserve in oil and gas after the Middle East. Particularly, Russia and Azerbaijan are major producers. Regarding the oil and gas trade and geopolitical rivalries, China is supposed to pose significant influences as it does in Africa. However, it is not clear how China gets involved in the energy dispute and geopolitical interactions.

Quite interestingly, comparisons of EU and ASEAN regional integration were discussed, and explored how BSEC integration should proceed. While the EU is a common political value club, ASEAN is more focused on economic cooperation within the region. In case of BSEC, the Russo-Western tug war in the former Soviet Union makes things complex.

In security, Europe and Japan share many agendas in common as democratic allies of the United States. Issues like US military bases are one of them, in view of the Futenma dispute between Okinawa residents and US armed forces. As Romania and Bulgaria joined NATO, the United States has military facilities close at hand Russia. However, Former Romanian Defense Minister Ioan Pascu, currently Vice Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, points out that those facilities jointly used with Romania and Bulgaria, not exclusively by the United States. Thus, he says that things are completely different from the Futenma case in Japan.

Toward more multilateral approach to this region, I am impressed with a comment by Director Atsushi Kaifu of Central and South Eastern Europe Division of European Affairs Bureau at Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He mentioned the New Silk Road Speech by Prime Minister-then Ryutaro Hashimoto and the Arch of Peace and Prosperity Speech by Foreign Minister-then Taro Aso as breakthroughs for Japanese commitment to global security and well-being. The latter speech sounds something like echoing foreign policy of George W. Bush. In a journal jointly published by the Institute for Central Asian and Caucasian Studies in Sweden and the Institute of Strategic Studies of the Caucasus in Azerbaijan, Gursel Ismailzada, Counselor of the Azerbaijani Embassy in Japan, presents an extensive analysis on the Aso Speech (“A New Pillar of Japanese Foreign Policy: The Arc of Freedom and Prosperity—Japanese Policy toward the GUAM Organization”; CENTRAL ASIA AND THE CAUCASUS Journal of Social and Political Studies; No. 3-4 (51-52), 2008).

I appreciate Aso’s speech much more than current Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama’s controversial East Asian initiative, because I firmly believe that Japan be at the heart of the Western alliance of free nations along with the United States, Britain, Germany, and France. Japan should be a member of the anchor of world peace and prosperity, constituted of top industrialized democracies. Through this “best and brightest” club, Japan will augment its political presence on the global stage.

As Kaifu advocated more active Japanese involvement beyond the neighborhood, I wish he had talked furthermore. Generally, people see Japan and the Black Sea area has been remote each other, and new relationships are currently being built. However, I strongly disagree to such a viewpoint. In my eyes, it appears that policymakers are obsessed with “Scandinavian” roles for Japan, ie, economic and development assistance. I would argue that Japan also pursue “Anglo-American” liberal imperialist roles, such as commitment to the War on Terror and a regime change.

I firmly believe that Japan has a historical role in the Black Sea, the Middle East, and the Caspian Sea area. Most notably, Turkey under Kemal Ataturk and Iran under Reza Shah Ⅰ followed Japan’s path for modernization in the Meiji Revolution. Japan can help de-Islamification of Turkey, and endorse Turkish membership for the EU. This will be an invaluable contribution to defeat Islamic radicals in the War on Terror. In addition, as a top industrialized democracy, Japan should actively get involved with governance reform in Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union to help eastward expansion of the alliance of free nations.

The Japan-Black Sea Dialogue was a great opportunity to understand Japanese diplomacy and interactions among global powers in this region. I really appreciate the Global Forum of Japan for inviting me to this event. It is a pity that I cannot mention so many valuable views and insights presented by the panelists in this post.

Ukrainian Presidential Election and the Russo-Western Clash

The presidential election in Ukraine on January 17 is a critical test for Euro-Atlantic security. As expected, no candidates won majority vote, and the second round election will be held on February 7 between Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and opposition leader Viktor Yanukovich. It is quite important to understand that people are disillusioned with the Orange Revolution 5 years ago, but no candidates can capture the heart of the whole nation. In addition, as I comment repeatedly on this blog, the clash between Russia and the West is a vital issue. The Orange Revolution is a brilliant victory of the Bush administration’s foreign policy. Also, Senator John McCain played a substantial role to help Ukrainian civic quest for democracy. A failure to deal with Ukraine can lower currently dropping approval rate for the Obama administration furthermore.

Before talking about the election, let me present an overview of Ukrainian politics and the Russo-Western power game. Prior to the election, Mark Medish, Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, talks of complicated ethnic and regional backgrounds in Ukrainian politics. Quoting Vladimir Putin’s remark to George W. Bush, Medish points out that Ukraine is a kind of manmade state without national integrity. While some western parts were Hapsburg territories, south eastern part including Crimea was ceded from the Russian Republic of the Soviet Union (“The Difficulty of Being Ukraine”; International Herald Tribune; December 22, 2009). Those ethno-regional gaps are reflected in the map below.





The Economist narrates post-Soviet history of Ukraine to explore poor governance and failures of this country since the Orange Revolution. Ukrainian people were infuriated with ambiguous power transition from Leonid Kuchuma to Viktor Yanukovich, when the revolution broke out. The outrage was not directly against Yanukovich himself. The Yushchenko administration failed to live up to people’s expectation. Unlike Russia and Poland, Ukraine had no liberal economists in charge, which led the Ukrainian economy to be dominated by corruptional oligarchs. Yushchenko did not smash wide spread kleptocracy. His nationalist policy to promote Ukrainian language and revise history annoyed ethnic Russians in the east (“Five years on in Kiev”; Economist; January 21, 2010). The Orange government failed to meet high expectation among Ukrainian citizens.

Ukrainians are not the only ones responsible for the above problems. Thomas Valasek, Director of Foreign Policy and Defence at the Centre for European Reform, comments that Ukrainian politicians are beginning to downplay relations with Brussels because some EU nations are reluctant to accept Ukrainian membership. Valasek argues that the EU should encourage reforms in Ukraine rather than complain poor governance. He says this election is a chance to reconsider EU-Ukrainian relations (“Ukraine and the EU: A vicious circle?”; CER Bulletin; December 2009/January 2010).

Professor David Marples at the University of Alberta in Canada, says Ukrainians are fed up with infighting between President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko. Also, continual corruption despite the Orange Revolution lowers the approval rate for the current administration (“Ukrainians Disillusioned with President Yushchenko”; VOA News; 13 January 2010).

While President Yushchenko drove Ukrainianization of language and culture to remove Russian and old Soviet influences, ethnic Russians resisted his policy. The United States was unenthusiastic to support Yushchenko because of his lack of leadership (“Where did Ukraine's Yushchenko go wrong?”; Reuters; January 11, 2010). President Obama did not show any will to stop Kremlin expansionism in the gas dispute last year, while enjoying the razzle-dazzle with show biz stars.

The relationship with Russia is a key issue in post-election Ukrainian politics. Russian expectation for improved relations is quite high. James Sherr, Head of Russia and Eurasia Programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, points out that Russians regard Ukraine as a part of their historical identity, as Russian history began from Russ settlement in Kiev. This is no less important than geopolitical rivalry against NATO, he says (“Will Moscow-Kiyv Ties Improve After Ukrainian Election?”; VOA News; 15 January 2010). As if courting Russia, Yanukovich criticized Ukrainian nationalists for blaming Russia regarding the 1932-1933 Holodomor famine (“Ukraine must not blame neighbors for famine – Yanukovych”; RIA Novosti; 16 January 2010).

On the other hand, presidential candidates employ election advisors from the United States to keep ties with this country. Even pro-Russian Yanukovich hires a campaign strategist worked for John McCain (“Ukraine candidates relying on US advisers”; Washington Post; January 15, 2010).

Whichever wins, Ukraine will face compelling domestic and foreign policy problems. Gwynne Dyer, an independent journalist in London, contributes an article to a Ukrainian medium to discuss post-election Ukrainian politics. He points out that neither NATO nor the EU is willing to confront Russia. In addition, Ukrainian steel, chemical, and aviation industries need Russian oil and gas. Dependent on IMF loans, Ukraine cannot make key decisions in economic policy by itself (“Whether Yanukovych or Tymoshenko, next president left with little room to maneuver”; Kyiv Post; January 21, 2010).

Certainly, the next administration will soften Russian policy, even if Tymoshenko wins. However, it does not mean that the West abstain from exerting influence on Ukraine. As I mentioned in this post, even pro-Russian Yanukovich hopes to maintain ties with the United States. I agree with Thomas Valasek that the European Union be more helpful for nation building of Ukraine. The Obama administration is too conciliatory to Russia, and this is one of the reasons why Ukrainian people feel disillusioned with the Orange Revolution and the West. Watch what happens on the second round vote on February 7. The result of this election will have significant effects on clashes between free nations and the Russo-Chinese illiberal axis. Things are beyond Euro-Atlantic, and they are global.



References for basic understanding on Ukraine:
“TIMELINE-Ukrainian politics since the 2004 Orange Revolution”; Reuters; January 17, 2010

“Q&A: Ukraine presidential election”; BBC News; 15 January 2010

Attention to Ukrainian Presidential Election!

This summer, I talked of Russian pressure on Ukraine in view of the forthcoming presidential election in January. The election will be held on January 17, and the final result will be determined on January 27. Wikipedia shows an introduction to this election which will be helpful to understand basic points about it.

Among numerous candidates, President Viktor Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, and pro-Russian opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych, are key focuses. According to the poll conducted by Research & Branding Group, Yanukovich and Tymoshemko lead, while Yushchenko is far behind both candidates. A Ukrainian journalist Tetyana Vysotska introduces each candidate on her blog with a brief biosketch (Who is who in Ukraine).

Since the Orange Revolution in 2004, Ukraine has been a showcase of successful Western styled democracy under the Yushchenko administration. The power of citizens and the rule of law rectified the fraud election, and Yushchenko was inaugurated as the president, instead of pro-Russian Yanukovich. It was a spectacular victory for the Bush administration that sponsored democratic movements during the revolution. Pro-Western Yushchenko administration started to bid the membership for NATO and the EU.

However, poor economic performance and a dispute over appointment of cabinet minister have split President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko. An American businessman, who runs an IT outsourcing company in Kiev, talks of the split within the administration concisely on his blog (“Yushchenko, Tymoshenko Rivalry Emerges onto Public Stage”; Kiev Ukraine News Blog; February 16, 2008). In addition, as I previously quoted an article by Thomas Valasek, Director of Foreign Policy and Defence at the Centre for European Reform, Ukraine has not resolved domestic corruption since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and faces difficulty in transition to capitalism and democracy.

According to David Kramer, Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United　States, the principal issue in this election is the economy as Ukrainian GDP is expected to fall 15% this year. While Yanukovich and Tymoshenko lead the poll, no candidates are likely to gain over 50% of votes, and the second round election will be held on February 7. Although Yanukoich courts Russia, the Kremlin strikes a balance between both leading candidates very carefully (“Ukraine’s Presidential Election: A Primer”; Focus on Ukraine; December 18, 2009).

Fair election is an important issue, as the 2004 fraud is too widely known. The result of this election will have significant implications to relations between Russia and the West, and Euro-Atlantic security. Furthermore, the consequence of the forthcoming election will place critical influence on democracy promotion in the former Soviet Union. In other words, post Berlin Wall world will be tested.

New Year will start turbulently. Keep an eye on this election. Finally, enjoy listening to Ukrainian national anthem by a top singer of this country Ruslana, who is the champion of the Eurovision Song Contest 2004, and supported the Orange Revolution. Watch the video.

US Missile Defense Withdrawal from Poland and Czech May Activate Russian Hawks

The Obama administration has decided to withdraw the Missile Defense Plan to deploy anti-ballistic missile system in Poland and Czech. It was intended to protect US allies from Iranian nuclear missiles. Russia bitterly has been opposing this plan since the Bush era.

President Obama’s decision spurred vehement criticism among Republicans such as Senator John McCain and Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. Alternatively, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the United States would deploy Aegis-equipped ships to shoot down Iranian missiles (“U.S. replaces Bush plan for Europe missile shield”; Reuters; September 17, 2009).

Russia is likely to regard this decision as a victory to the United States. On the other hand, Poland and Czech raised concerns that the Obama administration is appeasing to Russia. (“U.S. to Shelve Nuclear-Missile Shield”; Wall Street Journal; September 17, 2009)

Thomas Valasek, Director of Foreign Policy and Defence at the Centre for European Reform, says that Obama is right to proceed nuclear disarmament with Russia, but it must be combined with assurance American engagement to Eastern Europe. Also, he points out that Russia is still obsessed with the idea of zero-sum game, which is US gains mean Russian losses, and vice versa (“Missile strategy must not be seen as a retreat”; Financial Times; 9 September 2009).

However, things are quite tough. I have been writing some posts on Russia to explore widespread cult nationalism in the post communist era. In view of this, Republican Senator Jon Kyl condemns President Obama as the following.

Despite the fact that Poland and the Czech Republic have committed their soldiers to fight alongside U.S. forces in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, today the Administration has turned its back on these allies. ….. The message the Administration sends today is clear: the United States will not stand behind its friends and views ‘re-setting’ relations with Russia more important. This is wrong! (“Kyl Blasts Obama Missile Defense Surrender”; Weekly Standard Blog; September 17, 2009)


Gary Schmitt, Director of Advanced Strategic Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, comments “It looks like not only have we hit the reset button when it comes to Russia, but now with our friends in Central Europe—except this time, it’s a big fat “no thank you” for your willingness to stick your neck out to protect allies" (“Are We Dropping Missile Defense in Europe?”; The Enterprise Blog; September 16, 2009).

More importantly, hawks are invigorated to hear this deal in an increasingly rightist Russia. I have mentioned that Russians are more and more infatuated with Joseph Stalin these days, and the Medvedev-Putin administration make use of this patriotic passion for their authoritarian rule.

Russian diplomacy is based on zero-sum ideas, and Moscow foreign policymakers do not understand Western concepts of “win-win” deals which Obama has in mind. The rise of hardliners will pose negative impacts on Ukraine, Georgia, and trans-Caucasia as well (“Demise of U.S. shield may embolden Russia hawks”; Reuters; September 17, 2009).

I strongly argue that the Obama administration needs to understand the nature of the counterpart regime. As shown in the Prague and the Cairo Speeches, Barack Obama is too hesitant to trumpet American power and ideals. Nile Gardiner, Ex-Foreign Policy Staff to Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, said it was too apologetic. The world never needs soft and sweet America. President Obama, please don’t discourage Poles and Czechs, whose real HOPE lies in close ties with the West.

Russia Becoming Increasingly Nationalist at the 70th Anniversary of the Soviet-German Invasion to Poland

Global American Discourse has published a few posts on Russo-Western conflicts and nationalism recently. The tension between Russia and the West will be intensified as the presidential election in Ukraine will be held in January next year. Also, a nationwide nostalgia for Joseph Stalin is growing, and the Medvedev-Putin administration makes use of this emotion.

As if it is a prelude to further tension between Russia and the West, a remark by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia startled President Lech Kaczynski and Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland, and leaders across Europe who attended the 70th anniversary ceremony of the outbreak of World War in Gdansk, Poland. In sharp contrast to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany who expressed heartfelt regret to Nazi brutalism, Putin denied the massacre of Katyn Forest in 1940, in which 22,000 Polish officers and soldiers were executed by Soviet Red Army (“Russia and Poland clash over who was to blame for the war”; Independent; 2 September 2009). Furthermore, Major General Lev Solotov of SVR, Russian foreign intelligence agency has released a report to mention that Polish cooperation with Nazi Germany before the war and Polish attempts to sow discord among the Soviet Union’s ethnic nationalities. (“In a Visit, Putin Tries to Ease Rifts With Poland”; New York Times; September 2, 2009, and also, the report in Russian)

In the video below, Russia Today reports almost the same as Western media do.





The Putin Russia is rewriting the history, and showing excessively self assertive attitude to the West. In other words, Russia is acting like the Old Soviet Union.

The fall of communism has transformed East European nations into free and peaceful allies to the West, but things have gone completely different in Russia. Post-Soviet political anomies have led to the rise of cult nationalism, which is more dangerous than communism. As I repeatedly say, the Clintonian dream of incorporating Russia into the Western political economic system of IMF and WTO has failed. The market economy has not changed Russia into a real democracy.

Despite this, the Obama administration is too hesitant to demonstrate wholehearted American support for Poland, regarding the deployment of the anti-missile system. I wish George W. Bush had manipulated some crises in East Europe and Former Soviet Union, in order to let John McCain win the election, and to contain Russian expansionism. The Georgian crisis was not enough to awaken American voters.

The 70th anniversary of the German-Soviet invasion to Poland is a reminder that Russian challenge to European security will grow increasingly critical. The ceremony in Gdansk is no less important than the summit in Yekaterinburg this summer. Keep an eye on Russia.

The Russo-Western Tug War over Ukraine

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev postponed dispatching new Russian ambassador to Kiev, and blamed Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko for his anti-Russian policies, such as arming Georgia against Russia and pursuing NATO membership. This is a pressure on the forthcoming Ukrainian presidential election in January 2010. According to Lilia Shevtsova, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Moscow Center, "It is a message to any new leader that we will deal with you only when you accept our demands." (Medvedev issues ultimatum to Ukraine leadership”; Financial Times; August 12, 2009).

In the TV speech broadcasted by Russia Today on August 10, President Medvedev explains why he sent such a hash message to Ukraine. Medvedev stressed common cultural heritage and history between Russia and Ukraine. However, he denounced Ukrainian defense policy to supply its weapons to Georgia in the war over South Ossetia. In cultural and educational policy, Medvedev blamed the Ukrainian government for excluding the Russian language at school and public organizations. In the economy, Medvedev criticizes Ukrainian restrictions on Russian businesses. On history, Medvedev blamed Ukraine for illustrating the Great Patriotic War as a battle between dictators. Considering current enthusiasm for Stalin in Russia, the Yushhenko administration has aroused Russian ire. See the video below.





Actually Russians felt critically nervous when US Vice President Joseph Biden visited Ukraine and Georgia, following the Moscow summit between President Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev from July 6 to 8 to reset US Russian relations. Russia Today interviewed Ivan Eland, a political analyst at the Independent Institute, on July 20. Eland says that the United States is sending a mixed signal. As Obama told the United States wants to improve relations with Russia, while endorsing NATO expansion. In the interview, Eland soothes Russian public concern with the mixed signal, and emphasizes that Russia hosted the President while Ukraine and Georgia hosts just the Vice President. Therefore, he says that the United States will not ruin the relationship with Russia for the sake of Ukraine and Georgia. See the following video.





Both videos illustrate widespread viewpoints among Russian policymakers, regarding the advance of the Free Europe into the Former Soviet Union. In other words, Russian leaders still retain Soviet styled geopolitical instinct.

As Lilia Shevtsova told the Financial Times, President Medvedev said that the relationship with Ukraine would not be normalized until a new leader supplants current President Yushchenko (“Medvedev: No Normal Ties with Ukraine Under Current Leaders”; VOA News; 14 August 2009).

Tomas Valasek, Director of Foreign Policy and Defence at the Centre for European Reform, has released an insightful report to understand the tug war between Russia and the West, entitled “Why Ukraine matters to Europe” in December 2008. He points out that Ukraine has tremendously signaling power, as it is the largest country between the EU and Russia in terms of area and population. EU members in Eastern Europe want a strong and stable buffer against Russia. Once Ukraine joins the EU, this will have significant influences on from EU neighbors like Belarus and Moldova to Caucasus nations.

Quite importantly, Valasek points out that if Ukraine succeeds in developing a transparent political system and a credible market economy, it would undermine the appeal of Putin-styled state controlled capitalism. Therefore, Russia wants to slow down Europeanization of former Soviet nations beyond geopolitical considerations.

Most importantly, Valasek argues that poor governance in Ukraine dominated by corrupt oligarchs is a hurdle for the membership to the EU and NATO. Also, this provokes Russian interventionism, as Vladimir Putin said to George W. Bush, “George, Ukraine is not even a state.”

Both Western and Russian media tend to focus on geopolitical rivalry, but the Ukrainian must be reformed as well. Tomas Valasek mentions invaluable points to advance Ukrainian bid for EU and NATO membership, and read the report for detail. The West needs to help Ukrainians build good governance to fulfill the qualification for the Atlantic community and separate themselves from Soviet legacies. Once Ukraine is successfully Europeanized, things in the New Cold War between the West and the Russo-Chinese axis will be in our favor.

Fanatic Devotion to “Stalin=Putin” in Russia

As nationalism is growing in Russia, people crave for a strong leader. As shown in the video below, Al Jazeera reported the result of a recent poll on the greatest leaders in Russian history on December 13, 2008. According to the poll, No. 1 was Alexander Nevsky, Grand Prince of Novgorod and Vladimir in the 13th century. Nevsky was venerated as a saint of the Russian Orthodox Church because he defeated Roman Catholic invaders from Sweden and the German Order. The second was Peter the Great. The third, comes a controversial leader, Josef Stalin.





What makes Stalin so popular? A woman on the street of Moscow smiles gently, and replies in the interview that despite criticism to his brutalism, Russia needed Stalin to defeat Nazi and transform the nation into a superpower. Yet, critics, such as Masha Lipman, Editor of Pro et Contra journal of the Carnegie Moscow Center, argue that people miss that Stalin was a butcher and sent millions of people into labor camps.

Such devotion to Stalin is coincided with enthusiasm to current strongman in Russia, Vladimir Putin. In the following video of Aljazeera broadcasted on November 30, 2007, a military cadet applauses Putin as a Stalin in her own era. Putin renamed Volgograd into Stalingrad.





A British distributor of news and documentaries, called Journeyman Pictures, sheds lights on Stalin debates in current political context in Russia. Russian human rights activist Grigory Shvedov points out Putin and his Kremlin comrades make use of Stalin nostalgia to govern the narod. See this video by Journeyman Pictures on November 7, 2007.

In political anomies in Russia where money and capitalism dominates the society, the elderly and the young are increasingly getting infatuated with the legend of Josef Stalin.

Quite interestingly, Stalin replaced the Socialist Internationale of the Lenin era with new Soviet national anthem, and Putin restored it when he inaugurated the presidency from Boris Yeltsin. This song was originally composed to encourage Soviet soldiers fighting against Nazi Germany in the Great Patriotic War. Compared with the Internationale, it sounds too Russian, and is not a cosmopolitan labor union song of Workers of the world, unite. Whether Socialist Russia or Capitalist Russia, no other anthem is so nationalist as to repeat motherland, motherland, and motherland. I posted an article on Russian anthem in the past, and watch the video of the Internationale below. Listening both, you will understand how different they are.





Dictators capture the heart of narod as shown in the following videos. The Red Army Choir sings in the Stalin version lyrics in both Stalin and Putin videos (Commonly known Soviet anthem is the Brezhnev version lyrics, sung from 1977 to the collapse of the Union). Seeing "Stalin, a Great Leader!" video, I feel as if I were praying to St. Josef Stalin at the Russian Orthodox Church. I hope they will be of much help for you to understand “Putin=Stalin”.











Also, see pictures below. Yes, with only moustache and hair, Putin is completely Stalin!

Reset with Russia? Just Wait

Unlike previous tours to Europe and the Middle East, it was difficult for President Barack Obama to tame the Fierce Russian Bear simply through charming smile and sweet words and phrases. The Media focus on the strategic arms reduction talk, but issues like democracy and human rights are no less important, as eminent foreign policy experts have sent an open letter to the President as I mention in the last post. Also, it was the first time for President Obama to meet Prime Minister Vladimir Stalin Putin. Russian media response was cautious to Obama’s remark of reset (“Obama visit gets lukewarm welcome from Russian media”; Reuters; July 7, 2009).

Let me review some commentaries prior to the summit. The Economist argues that Obama must be tough to help empowerment of Russian citizens as ruling élites stoke anti-Americanism while enjoying opportunity to contact with the West. Also, the writer says that Obama must defend Georgia and Ukraine from Russian expansionism. Meanwhile, both the United States and Russia have common interests in cutting strategic nuclear weapons (“Welcome to Moscow”; Economist; July 2, 2009). On the other hand, hawks insist that new START must not sacrifice expansion of freedom in Russian neighbors (“Obama and Putin's Russia”; Wall Street Journal; July 6, 2009). Regarding missile defense and NATO expansion, Michael McFaul, Special Assistant to the President, said that the United States was going to define its national interests, not bargaining something (“Russia Presents Test for Obama”; Washington Post; July 5, 2009).

Quite interestingly, a journalist commented about anti-Americanism in the Kremlin, “For the last eight years they have been able to hide that fact by pretending it is really George W Bush that they did not like. Now they have to face an American president who is genuinely popular around the world. He terrifies them, and they still haven't figured out what they are going to do" (“Obama seeks thaw in US-Russia ties”; BBC News; 4 July 2009). Andrey Zolotov, Chief Editor of Russia Profile, pointed out that US-Russian economic ties are weak as raw material dependent Russian economy does not attract the United States. Therefore, the Russo-American relationship is predominated by geopolitics and national pride. Also, he said that the Obama effect would not work so dramatically to improve bilateral relations, because current downturn resulted from Clinton era diplomacy (“Russian Expert: Pressing 'Reset' May Not Suffice” NPR; July 5, 2009).

The most important issue of this summit was national security, particularly strategic arms reduction. In addition to the renewal of START, the war in Afghanistan and nuclear proliferation to Iran and North Korea were discussed. In the following video of Russia Today on July 7, Russian political analyst Victor Linnik comments that the timing of this summit is very good to improve bilateral relations.





While the reset has started in the strategic arms negotiation, gaps on missile defense remains unresolved. See another video of Russia Today below.





In the Spotlight of Russia Today on July 8, commentators expressed concerns with US missile defense system to be deployed in Poland and Czech against non-existent Iranian nuclear missile. In my view, what they said is not fair, because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asserts his nuclear ambition, even though Iran has not developed the bomb yet. On the other hand, both Edward Lozansky, President of the American University in Moscow, and Andrey Zolotov, Chief Editor of Russia Profile, were impressed with Barack Obama’s speech at the New Economic School to emphasize mutual prosperity instead of zero-sum power game. See the video below.





BBC also reports this speech with moderate hope of resetting Russo-American relations (“Obama urges shift in Russia ties”; BBC News; 7 July 2009).

On the other hand, Joshua Keating, Web Editor of Foreign Policy, criticizes the cooperation deal with Russia on Afghanistan because the United States can choose other reliable partners like Kirgizstan and Uzbekistan (“Did Obama accomplish anything in Moscow?”; FP Passport; July 7, 2009).

The first meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Putin is a landmark of US-Russian diplomacy. It was something like a ceremonial salute for Obama to the most influential politician of Russia, and Putin recalled warm personal ties with George W. Bush despite clash of national interests between the United States and Russia (“Putin praises Bush hospitality during Obama visit”; Reuters; July 7, 2009).

Human rights and democracy issues were no less important than national security, because open letters were released to the public as I mentioned in the last post. Liberals criticize such actions, because they believe steadfast demand on human rights will damage the US-Russian partnership on the War on Terror (“The Latest Neocon Attack on Obama”; Huffington Post; July 2, 2009). President Obama was cautious to avoid criticizing Russia directly, as he requested Russian admission to pass US troops in its territory to attack terrorists in Afghanistan (“Obama, in Russia, praises democracy, blasts graft”; Reuters; July 7, 2009). Though modestly, Barack Obama invited opposition opinion leaders like Novaya Gazeta Newspaper and civil society representatives to advocate American involvement (“President Obama Reaches Out to Russian Opposition”; VOA News; 8 July 2009). At the meeting with Obama, Boris Nemtsov, head of pro-Western Solidarity party said, "Now Putin and Medvedev will realize that there is more than just them in the political arena. We demand free political competition." Among Russian civil societies, Yuri Dzhibladze, President of the Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights, and Andrei Kortunov, head of the New Eurasia Foundation, expressed their high expectation for Obama (“Obama talks spur rights call by Russian activists”; Reuters; July 8, 2009).

Although strategic arms reduction attracted media and public attention, democracy in Russia is as important as security issues. Unlike previous tours to Europe and the Middle East, President Barack Obama was not apologetic to American foreign policy in the past. Still, Obama appears timidly cautious to address American ideals. I do not know whether President Obama read articles by Nile Gardiner, former advisor to Lady Thatcher. People in quest of freedom anticipate strong leadership of America, from Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Iran, and around the world. I agree with Gardiner, and President Obama should be more assertive to help America’s allies and friends in the above counties.




For further reference, see this link.

Open Letters for President Obama to CHANGE His Russia Policy

Leading foreign policy experts and Senators sent their open letters to urge President Barack Obama to stand tough against Russia. On July 1, the Foreign Policy Initiative, a newly launched think tank led by Robert Kagan and William Kristol, urged President Obama to mention human rights and democracy in Russia in the forthcoming US-Russian Summit in Moscow ("Open Letter to President Obama on Democracy and Human Rights in Russia"; Foreign Policy Initiative; July 1, 2009).

About 40 signatories demanded that Obama be true to his conviction to freedom in the world famous Prague and Cairo speeches. Policy experts who signed this letter are concerned with retreat of political and economic freedom in Russia since Vladimir Putin became the President. At the end of the letter, signatories stressed that President Obama not reset the US-Russian relationship at the expense of Russian citizens and Russia’s neighbors.

The following day, influential senators, including John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, pressured the President not to withdraw the anti-missile defense plan in the negotiation with Russia to renew the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). They argued that interests of the United States and allies must not be sacrificed (“Letter to President Obama from Senators Inhofe, Lieberman, Kyl, Nelson, McCain, Begich, Sessions, Johanns, Wicker, and Hatch”; July 2, 2009).

Both open letters are publicized in such a critical time. Quite recently, President Obama is criticized for his inaction to blame autocrats in Iran and Honduras. Signatories of both letters urge Barack Obama to act as the President of the United States.

Both letters sound somewhat similar to what is stated in the well known message for President-then Bill Clinton on Iraq. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) criticized Clinton’s inaction against Saddam Hussein. Now, Russia has reemerged as a new threat to symbolize the failure of Clinton era diplomacy.

Both letters have insignificant implications beyond the Russian issue, but to the whole US foreign policy. What is tested is not just President Obama’s competence in foreign policy, but his devotion to American ideals.

Don’t Miss the Forthcoming US-Russian Strategic Arms Reduction Talk

Just before G8 Summit in L’Aquila in Italy from July 8 to 10, the United States and Russia will negotiate on strategic arms reduction from July 6 to 8 in Moscow (“Obama, Medvedev to talk nukes in July”; Press TV; 17 May 2009). Prior to the meeting between President Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev, US and Russian officials discuss disarmament. See the video below by Russia Today.

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of US Joint Chief of Staff, and General Nikolai Makarov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, met in Moscow on June 26 to make preparations for the bilateral summit. Professor Mikhail Troitsky of Moscow State University of International Relations comments that both the United States and Russia want a landmark for mutual disarmament.


“Security talks can relaunch Russia-US relations”; June 26, 2009



“US is not intending to threaten Russia in any way – US top military official”; June 27, 2009



Anti-missile defense will be a key agenda in the negotiation. Yury Rogulev, director of the Franklin Roosevelt Foundation at Moscow State University, foresee that the talk will be tough.


“The AMD and START issues cannot be separated”; June 26, 2009



The United States and Russia agree that START Ⅰ must be renewed before it expires thus December. However, both sides disagree over US anti-missile defense system to be deployed in Poland and Czech. Will Obama withdraw the plan made by his predecessor George W. Bush, or not (“Will Obama shoot down Bush’s missile dreams during Moscow visit?”; Russia Today; July 1, 2009) ?

Meanwhile, conservatives in the United States are concerned that the Obama administration is too hasty to start the nuclear negotiation with Russia, as the team has not reviewed its own nuclear and defense policy sufficiently (“U.S. and Russia Push Arms-Control Talks Forward”; Wall Street Journal; June 2, 2009).


Don’t miss the Obama-Medvedev Summit in Moscow. Other issues, including Iran, North Korea, and the War on Terror are also discussed between the Big 2.

The Yekaterinburg Summit and the Failure of the Clintonian Attempt to Tame Russia and China

Watch the above video broadcasted by a new TV network founded in Russia in the post Soviet era (Mega-deals and security to link China and Russia”; Russia Today; June 17, 2009). This company, named Russia Today, provides Russian viewpoints in English for the global public, just as Al Jazeera presents Arab standpoints.

At the BRICs Summit at Yekaterinburg, Russia and China praised unprecedentedly good bilateral relations these days, and signed trade deals to expand economic cooperation. Quite importantly, they insisted that their dependence on the dollar be lowered, and more national currencies be used in international business. Clearly, Russia and China expressed their solid determination to confront the West in the economy.

The joint press conference by President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia and President Hu Jing Tao of China illustrates that Clintonian attempt to incorporate both new capitalist nations has ended in failure. Instead of becoming good citizens of Western-led liberal framework of global political economy, Russia and China decided to challenge us and establish their own order in their economic zone.

The dollar standard is founded on the trust to political and military power of the United States, and this is beyond economic rationalism. Both Russia and China are building up their armed forces rapidly to rival against the West, and expand their influence in their neighborhood. Such dangerous opponents are posing another challenge to us. What’s next?

At this stage, Russia and China cannot afford to make their currencies alternatives to US dollar. According to US Department of Treasury, both giants are dependent on the fortunes of US dollar debt (“Alternatives to the Dollar? Not So Fast”; Reuters Blog Commentaries; June 15, 2009).

Also, BRICs nations have mutual disagreements from the economy to security (“BRIC plotters stage a farce”; Asia Times; June 20, 2009). Apparently, Brazil and India are not interested in defying our regime, and they do not build up their military power so rapidly as Russia and China do.

Powerful enough or not, Russia and China declared their desire to dissemble an Anglo-American liberal order of the Bretton Woods System, and transform the global economy into a regime that reflects their authoritarian statist ideology. Economists are liable to talk of their emergence solely in terms of the market economy, and dismiss political threats posed by their ambition. But any economic policy is politically designed. Therefore, I regard their will to challenge us critical to global security.

The Yekaterinburg Summit is a landmark to show that the Clintonian attempt to incorporate Russia and China into our global economy was shattered. How can we deal with their ambition to challenge our preeminence in the world? What happens if we appease them? They may not be strong enough at this stage, but it is their will to overturn our preeminence that matters.　History has not ended, but it has started again.

Nashi or Nazi?: Putin’s Young and Dangerous Loyalists

In a previous post, I used some YouTube videos to narrate Russian history through the anthem. Current national anthem of Russia is so popular that you will find numerous Russian patriotic videos on YouTube.





Nashi flag





Among those videos, I found people waving a red flag with a white diagonal cross. You will find the flag in the last video of “A Review of Russian History through the Anthem”. They are members of a youth group called Nashi, which means ours. Nashi is a pro-Putin nationalist group founded in 2005 by Vasily Yakemenko, a leader of pro-Putin movement.





Nashi parade (Photo: BBC)






Let me narrate briefly about this organization. Nashi has its own website, but it is written in Russian only. Despite substantial influence on Russian politics under Vladimir Putin, the nature of Nashi is not well known. According to Wikipedia, this movement is closely related to United Russia, the ruling party under President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin. In the Western media, Nashi is widely regarded as a personality cult for Putin, whose foundation objective is to intimidate the opponent. This movement yearns for the strength of old Soviet Union and ancient tradition of Russia. Some of them points out a kind of similarity with Hitler youth.

Nashi is prevailing among Russian youth like a web of college and high school club. Despite hardliner ideology in domestic and foreign policy of this movement, youngsters enjoy Nashi’s camps and events like a kind of rock concert. At the camp, they even find someone with whom they fall in love (“Russia’s youth rises to champion old values” and “The Kremlin’s new commissaries”; BBC News; 12 July 2006). In some respect, Nashi attracts the younger generation in a way somewhat similar to that of pro-Obama campaign in 2008 presidential election in the United States.





Putin talking with youth (Photo: BBC)






Obsessed with the Orange and the Rose revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, the Kremlin sponsors their own loyalist group in Russia. Quite astonishingly, when Nashi members terrorized the Estonian embassy in Moscow, those violent youth were invited to the Kremlin while mild pro-Estonian protesters were brutally hit by the police (“Putin's children”; International Herald Tribune; July 5, 2007).

Putin exploits rising patriotism and social instability. People are distressed with the decline of their motherland since the loss of the Soviet Union and the collapse of social welfare. NATO expansion into Russia’s satellite states stirs anxiety on national security. Economic gaps between the rich and the poor are growing, and the number of people addicted to alcohol and drugs is rising. For youngsters in the midst of a post communist turmoil, Vladimir Putin is the savior to restore their national pride and show the hope for the future. (“The alarming spread of fascism in Putin’s Russia”; New Statesman; 24 July 2007)

The influence of Nashi is still strong. Youngsters are glad to spy opposition leaders to leak scandals to the public (“Pro-Kremlin 'Spy' Catches the Opposition off Guard”; Moscow Times; 25 February 2009). They believe that their voluntary service to the authoritarian leader as an activity of civil societies. It reminds me of the Tonarigumi in Japan during the World War Ⅱ.

Finally, I would like to ask a question. Can we really talk with such a Russia, regarding issues like nuclear weapons reduction? I hope someone to stop President Obama committing a fatal mistake to our security.

The Real Problem behind the Ukrainian Gas Crisis

A unilateral action taken by Russia to cut gas supplies to Ukraine on New Year’s Day has imperiled the life of nations across Eastern, Central, and even Western Europe. The map below shows considerable dependence of European nations on Russian natural gas.

Source: BBC

The EU gets a quarter of its gas supplies from Russia - 80% of which passes through Ukraine - and more than 15 countries across central Europe have been hit by the shutdown of Russian supplies (“Russian gas flow disappoints EU”; BBC News; 13 January, 2009)

In a cold weather in winter, numerous people across Europe will be frozen to death, if the supply cut continues. This crisis is more dangerous than current skirmish in Gaza. Moreover, Israeli attack is a natural retaliation against Hamas, while none of Ukrainians and East Europeans assaulted any Russians over the gas dispute. The media are unfair to blame Israel, but not Russia.

Thanks to the help of her European fellows, Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko of Ukraine managed to reach an agreement with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia on January 18, to start gas flow again. Quoting a Russian paper, Moskovsky Komsomolets, the Christian Science Monitor concludes this conflict as the following in its blog.

No matter what turn the Russia-Ukraine gas conflict takes, the West will always act in accordance with its friend-foe system, where Russia will always be a foe. To the West, Ukraine is a country of the ‘victorious orange revolution,’ while Russia is ‘the cradle of Putin’s authoritarianism.’ Like almost all EU countries, Ukraine is an energy consumer, while Russia is a member of the rival “suppliers club. (“Russian gas post-mortem: Was it Princess Leia vs. Darth Vader?”; Global News Blog; January 19, 2009)

A 5th degree black belt judoist intimidates a Ukrainian princess?: Prime Minister Timoshenko and Prime Minister Putin signs a 10 year gas supply deal on January 19 in Moscow (Christian Science Monitor)


Things are not so simplistic. Europe feels disgusted with pushy diplomacy by Russia and poor governability of Ukraine (“Ukraine's pro-Western progress set back in gas crisis: analysts”; EU Business; 15 January 2009). In the aftermath of the Orange Revolution in 2004, Ukraine was a brilliant show case of Western styled democracy to former Soviet republics. Successful incorporation of Ukraine into NATO and the EU has been a vital agenda for the West.

However, Ukrainian politics has been paralyzed by continual conflicts between President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko. Also, corruption is serious.

Katinka Barysch, Deputy Director at the Center for European Reform, comments "The idea that the Orange Revolution would lead to a direct path towards democracy and free-market values has fallen apart," and "There is an impression that Ukraine is not a very well-run country and that certainly isn't to Ukraine's advantage when it comes to EU and NATO integration."

Ukrainians suspect that Russia conspires to decouple Europe and Ukraine with serious drawbacks caused by the gas crisis.

It is a pity neither President George W. Bush nor President-elect Barack Obama has taken any actions to deter Putin’s dangerous ambition. Particularly, I am appalled that Obama went on the razzle-dazzle with show biz stars in such a critical moment.

The Ukraine issue is beyond gas and energy. It is our imperative agenda to prevail democracy in order to make a secure and civilized world.

The West and New Capitalist Motherlands ―― Russia and China

While American conservatives worry about President-Elect Barack Obama’s new socialist motherland America, new capitalist motherlands of Russia and China pose far more critical challenges to global security. The clash between our liberal capitalism and their illiberal capitalism will be no less important than threats of Islamic radicals. President Bush has made substantial efforts to tackle dangers posed by Muslim terrorists, but it seems that the Russo-Chinese challenge has been left unconstrained. It is becoming increasingly important to understand the nature of their defiance to our liberal world order.

Bobo Lo, Director of Russia and China Programme at the Centre for European Reform in London, examines foreign policy of Russia and China in “Ten things everyone should know about the Sino-Russian relationship” (Policy Brief; Centre for European Reform; December 2008). He was the Deputy Head of the Mission at the Australian Embassy in Moscow. Lo articulates that Russia and China have contrasting national interests and values. Also, he insists that the Russo-Chinese partnership will not harm Western interests, because both nations are more interested in engaging with the West than with each other.

Lo criticizes neoconservative agenda that Western liberal democracies unite against the rise of Russo-Chinese authoritarianism. He even makes an analogy between this agenda and Marxist slogan of united international proletariats. To the contrary, Lo says that Russia and China do not share common interests in authoritarian alliance.

Let me review 10 points mentioned by Bobo Lo. He admits that bilateral economic relations are expanding, and security cooperation is developing rapidly. However, Lo points out that Russia is just one of the markets and natural resource suppliers for China. For Russia, China accounts for a tiny portion of its total amount of trade. Also, in security, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is not enthusiastically endorsed by the government of both countries.

Rather, Lo argues that both Russia and China are keenly interested in developing relations with the West, despite bitter rhetoric against American hegemony. Both Russia and China trade more with the West than each other. In addition, both Russia and China see the West as a model for their economic development despite recent financial crisis.

As the Chinese economy has been growing rapidly since late 1980s, the relation with Russia is becoming increasingly unequal. Though Russia has recovered from disruptive economy during the Yeltsin era, its economy is dependent on natural resources, and technological lag lowers its global competitiveness.

Lo also points out that Russia and China are competitors as well as partners in Central Asia. Sometimes, they unite against the West, while they confront each other in some cases.

The most importantly, Bobo Lo argues that Russia and China have different visions of the world. While Russia envisions its unique role to bridge the East (China) and the West (the United States), China regards Russia as a secondary great power along with Japan, India, and the EU in a world of rivalry against the United States. While Russian nationalism is confrontational to the West, China emphasizes “peaceful rise” or “harmonious world”. China is so cautious that it does not pursue a multilateral order so as not to provoke its indispensable partner, the United States.

A former Australian diplomat in Moscow, Bobo Lo presents invaluable insights on the nature of the Russo-Chinese challenge. Particularly, different visions of the world between Russia and China are important. However, his viewpoints seem to be quite liberal. Whatever their intentions are, both nations develop critical arsenals to defy American or Western supremacy. Russia has deployed Bulava SLBM while the United States has stopped producing new nuclear weapons. China succeeded in anti-satellite missile test.

Remember! Germany under Otto von Bismarck kept friendly relationship of common German blood with Britain under the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty. However, Kaiser fought against Britain, with forces built up by Bismarck. We have to be careful to the Russo- Chinese challenge.

A Review of Russian History through the Anthem

It is very important to understand the history of the country when people discuss foreign policy. National anthems can tell about the country more than hundreds of books. As Bruce Lee said, “don’t think but just feel” the country. Few nations have experienced regime changes so drastic as those of Russia, from czarist, communist, to capitalist. Even current capitalist Russia is in the process of drastic change as commented by Professor Andrei Zorin, Oxford University.

In order to feel Russia, let me review the anthem chronologically.

First, I hereby would like to introduce the anthem of czarist Russia, composed in 1830. Just watch the following video and feel it.





This is a very beautiful song. It hardly sounds national anthem. I feel this more like a hymn of Christian church. The title of czarist anthem is “God Save the Czar”, which is quite similar to that of British anthem, “God Save the Queen (or King)”. However, British anthem does not sound so religious. Apparently, it is an anthem of a modern and secular nation state of constitutional monarchy. But czarist Russian anthem sounds strongly religious.

There is nothing strange about religious tone with this anthem. Historically, Russia has a strong tie with the Byzantine Orthodox Church since Grand Duke Vladimir Ⅰ of Kiev converted to Christianity in 988. After the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, Moscow Grand Duke Ivan Ⅲ married Prince Sophia, niece of the last Byzantine Emperor Constantine Ⅺ. Since then, Russian emperor inherited the chief of the Orthodox Church.

Although I am deeply moved to hear this beautiful music, I feel feudalistic backwardness of czarist Russia on the other hand. History proves it right. Alexander Ⅱ emancipated serfs so late in 1861. Russia was defeated by rapidly modernizing Japan in 1905. Czar’s army was no rival to Kaiser’s Germany in World War Ⅰ.

The second video below is the communist anthem with English subtitles. This is a mighty and impressive song. Numerous Soviet athletes stood proudly on the stage with this Leninist anthem at medal reception ceremonies in the Olympic Games.





When you read the lyric of this anthem, you will understand that it is propaganda of the Communist Party in Moscow. I am surprised to find a phrase, “Sing to the Motherland, home of the free”. Is communism free? No! Never!

However, peoples of 15 republics believed in the ideal declared in this song during the Soviet era. Also, it is important to keep it in mind that patriotism and devotion to communism were identical in the Soviet regime.

Another version of Soviet anthem in English was sung by an American singer Paul Robeson, in order to commemorate the victory against the Nazi Germany. See the video below.





This is nothing but a flattery to Josef Stalin. “Long live our people, united and free”? Stalin was one of the most dreadful autocrats in history. Even Soviet citizens felt scared to hear his name.

The Soviet Union has collapsed finally in 1991, and the anthem changed accordingly.





This anthem lacks beauty of the Romanov song and might of the Soviet song. It sounds like just a banal music, as if symbolizing shrinking power of Russia during the Yeltsin era.

When Vladimir Putin was inaugurated to the president in 2000, he restored the Soviet anthem, but changed the lyric. In the video below, you can read the lyric in English and Russian.





As you understand, communist propaganda has been eliminated. Russia has become a capitalist nation, but people yearn superpower might of the Soviet era. Strangely enough, the Russian public takes pride in both Czarist tradition and Soviet power.





The above video is the concert at the Red Square in Moscow on the Russia Day, June 12 in 2005. President-then Putin sings the anthem with Russian pop stars. In the film, you will find the Romanov emblem of double-headed eagle around the top of the arch covering the stage. In terms of ideology, the Soviet melody and the Romanov emblem are at odds each other. This is unlikely set symbolizes Russian nationalism today.

I hope videos in this post will be helpful to feel nationalism in Russia under the leadership of Vladimir Putin. Also, I hope them helpful to feel Russian history. Don’t think, just feel!